What you were expecting someone to give you something objective so you could rant about no one being worth that much? Sorry, but my metric is the one that matters, and it says he's worth what he got.
If you honestly think, after repeatedly lying about what I said, that you'll get anything but dismissiveness from me, then you're not half as smart as you pretend to be.
If you genuinely cared about the answers, you would have asked the questions before you lied about what I claimed, not after.
"Just need to reiterate: the danger from the hydrazine was essentially ZERO."
Essentially zero is not zero, and I see no source backing this assertion up.
"It would have been the first thing to be destroyed upon reentry, just as soon as the tank ruptured or a hose broke loose."
Again, you make a claim that has absolutely no factual support of any kind, and are forwarding said claim as unassailable.
Unlike the mods who decided your unverified opinion is enough to deem your post "informative", I'd like to see some actual E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E if you don't mind.
I did not. Read that again until you understand that what I SAID is what I SAID with no implication at all.
If you're going to tell me what I meant, after you used astraw man to support an exceedingly weak argument, I'll take that to mean you know you have lost this debate.
"explained that twice now; are you being purposefully dense?"
WHO EXACTLY ARE YOU TO ASSUME YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY WHAT YOU READ INTO MY STATEMENTS.
I explained to YOU several times now exactly what I meant. Your continued insistence that I implied something EVEN AFTER I TOLD YOU EXPLICITLY WHAT I MEANT makes it clear you know your argument failed.
Why must you continue to pretend that what you read into my statement trumps my concise explanation of my statement?
I'd say that makes you the one being intentionally dense.
"Or can't you admin that you are wrong and the Constitution isn't the "best" place from which to argue rights?"
I never made that claim either, so why would I defend against another of your obvious straw men?
I told you this discussion was over until you did so.
You cannot REASON your way into supporting you claim that I said "ONLY the Constitution matters". You claime dI said it, I did not.
You can either post the QUOTE that supports you, or admit you made that position up to argue against.
So either you're arguing against straw men, or you're a liar.
Either way, this discussion is over until your support your claim, and NO your current post was not in any way support for your claim that I think "ONLY the Constitution matters".
"Please explain why the Constitution is the place to start when arguing rights"
Please post the quote where I claimed only the Constitution matters or admit you made it up. I have no intention of doing anything other than insisitng you support said claim until such time as you do.
You claimed I made an argument, and have as yet, failed to support your claim, or give any evidence that I claimed "ONLY the Constitution mtters" despite trying to argue as such. It really frustrates me when people like you have to resort to Straw Men to argue against me.
This conversation is over until you provide the quote I asked for.
Read my reply to your other post so you can understand why you failed to reply to my argument and instead fabricated one of your own to rail against.
My point was, an argument about rights is more effectively (not EXCLUSIVELY, BUT MORE EFFECTIVELY) supported by quoting the Constitution, NOT the Declaration of Independence.
You pulled "ONLY the Constitution matters" out of your ass, I never made that claim nor any even resembling it.
No evidence was requested before the point was dismissed.
Which again proves why you're wrong and I'm right.
"Actually he was totally right, if you make a comment like 'blacks are genetically less intelligent' or 'your brain's made of tunips' you better back it up."
Shouldn't you be backing up EVERY comment you make with facts?
Of course you should, which speaks to your ability to discuss these matters intelligently.
Again, YOU fail at understanding my original point. If you're arguing RIGHTS, your argument is FAR better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution rather than ambiguous feel good statements from the Declaration of Independence.
You completely missed the point in your rush to insult me.
"But then you'll get the argument that the Declaration of Independence is an historical document, and has no legal force like the Constitution."
And they'd be right.
"Those will be the same people who tell you that because some individual right is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or Amendments, you don't have it."
All I'm saying is, of you plan to argue about rights, quoting the relevant document will help you look like you know what you're talkign about (and conversely, quoting the Declaration of Independence as if it is anything more than a nice composition will make you look like you don't know what you're talking about).
"My time and effort is better spent attempting to organize peaceful revolt against our government than any of this shit."
I suspect people would listen more if you used a relevant argument from a relevant document instead of quoting what is essentially a propaganda piece.
The Declaration of Independence is nice, but that's not a legally biding statement. Maybe your argument would be better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution instead.
"In short, it has nothing of what I find important in graphic art."
And the Dark Knight series did?
Seriously, your criticism is just as easily leveled at that series, and honestly, the are was the weakest component. I remember thinking while reading it "who the hell paid this guy money for this" which is pretty standard for my critiques of Frank Miller. It's muddled, dreary, and distracts from the story.
And again, seriously, if you're going to criticize Sandman, you're going to have to get used to having your opinion dismissed, especially if you hold up Miller as a counterpoint. I suggest for your next trick, you tell us how crappy Watchmen was...
"Yes, there are great examples of American comic artists - Frank Miller comes to mind."
With every ounce of respect I can muster, that statement alone means your opinion is suspect.
"As an example, after hearing so much about the Sandman chronicles, I browsed through one. I found the art disappointing, and the story mildly interesting."
However, if that first statement weren't enough, that second one sealed it.
I've read comics from everywhere, thanks to one of my favorite (recently defanged) torrent trackers. I have to be honest, your opinion has to be based on a very small sample, as the vast majority of what I saw was crap.
"I wasnt saying that theyre not hostile just that what china do is nothing compaired to what the CIA do."
Which is irrelevant. The topic is China and their behavior, nothing more. No comparison of China to anyone else in any way makes their wrongs less wrong, so there is no logical reason to discuss anyone else.
In case you weren't aware, this is the fallacy you allowed yourself to fall victim to.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you missed the point of my post Mr. Rush to reply when you don't understand?
PS you did.
"SO every clinically depressed thirteen year old girl on medication should be standing up for herself?"
No, that's what her parents are for, and the legal system is an exceedingly poor substitute.
"Obviously you and I wouldn't pay that much to hire the guy"
Well, if it makes Microsoft look as bad as this situation has, I would at least try to take up a collection...
"To make him worth that kind of money?"
It's what he convinced someone to pay him.
What you were expecting someone to give you something objective so you could rant about no one being worth that much? Sorry, but my metric is the one that matters, and it says he's worth what he got.
"I haven't been lying about what you said."
Making a claim that isn't true = lying. You already admitted I didn't say what you claimed. You lied.
Call it what you want, you're liar and I couldn't care less what you have to say about it.
Also, I didn't read any of the rest of your post as I stopped caring about your opinion the second you lied.
If you honestly think, after repeatedly lying about what I said, that you'll get anything but dismissiveness from me, then you're not half as smart as you pretend to be.
If you genuinely cared about the answers, you would have asked the questions before you lied about what I claimed, not after.
"Just need to reiterate: the danger from the hydrazine was essentially ZERO."
Essentially zero is not zero, and I see no source backing this assertion up.
"It would have been the first thing to be destroyed upon reentry, just as soon as the tank ruptured or a hose broke loose."
Again, you make a claim that has absolutely no factual support of any kind, and are forwarding said claim as unassailable.
Unlike the mods who decided your unverified opinion is enough to deem your post "informative", I'd like to see some actual E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E if you don't mind.
"it would still undergo structural failure at some point due to the terrific pressure hydrazine would generate at those temperatures"
Can you provide a link that proves this conclusively?
It just seems fair that if you're going to ask others to support their argument you should attempt to support yours as well.
"In those exact words, no"
That should have been the end of your post.
"but you implied it"
I did not. Read that again until you understand that what I SAID is what I SAID with no implication at all.
If you're going to tell me what I meant, after you used astraw man to support an exceedingly weak argument, I'll take that to mean you know you have lost this debate.
"explained that twice now; are you being purposefully dense?"
WHO EXACTLY ARE YOU TO ASSUME YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY WHAT YOU READ INTO MY STATEMENTS.
I explained to YOU several times now exactly what I meant. Your continued insistence that I implied something EVEN AFTER I TOLD YOU EXPLICITLY WHAT I MEANT makes it clear you know your argument failed.
Why must you continue to pretend that what you read into my statement trumps my concise explanation of my statement?
I'd say that makes you the one being intentionally dense.
"Or can't you admin that you are wrong and the Constitution isn't the "best" place from which to argue rights?"
I never made that claim either, so why would I defend against another of your obvious straw men?
I told you this discussion was over until you did so.
You cannot REASON your way into supporting you claim that I said "ONLY the Constitution matters". You claime dI said it, I did not.
You can either post the QUOTE that supports you, or admit you made that position up to argue against.
So either you're arguing against straw men, or you're a liar.
Either way, this discussion is over until your support your claim, and NO your current post was not in any way support for your claim that I think "ONLY the Constitution matters".
"Please explain why the Constitution is the place to start when arguing rights"
Please post the quote where I claimed only the Constitution matters or admit you made it up. I have no intention of doing anything other than insisitng you support said claim until such time as you do.
"Please show me where I said that."
You have yet to do what I asked.
You claimed I made an argument, and have as yet, failed to support your claim, or give any evidence that I claimed "ONLY the Constitution mtters" despite trying to argue as such. It really frustrates me when people like you have to resort to Straw Men to argue against me.
This conversation is over until you provide the quote I asked for.
"that things ONLY the Constitution matters,"
Please show me where I said that.
Read my reply to your other post so you can understand why you failed to reply to my argument and instead fabricated one of your own to rail against.
My point was, an argument about rights is more effectively (not EXCLUSIVELY, BUT MORE EFFECTIVELY) supported by quoting the Constitution, NOT the Declaration of Independence.
You pulled "ONLY the Constitution matters" out of your ass, I never made that claim nor any even resembling it.
"But that's the thing no evidence was presented."
No evidence was requested before the point was dismissed.
Which again proves why you're wrong and I'm right.
"Actually he was totally right, if you make a comment like 'blacks are genetically less intelligent' or 'your brain's made of tunips' you better back it up."
Shouldn't you be backing up EVERY comment you make with facts?
Of course you should, which speaks to your ability to discuss these matters intelligently.
You fail.
"All he did is prove that Open Debate is not a license to waste time"
This is why you fail. YOU don't get to decide what is a waste of time at an open debate.
As I said, you fail totally.
Again, YOU fail at understanding my original point. If you're arguing RIGHTS, your argument is FAR better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution rather than ambiguous feel good statements from the Declaration of Independence.
You completely missed the point in your rush to insult me.
Um, WTF are you talking about? Are you sure you replied to the right poster?
"But then you'll get the argument that the Declaration of Independence is an historical document, and has no legal force like the Constitution."
And they'd be right.
"Those will be the same people who tell you that because some individual right is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or Amendments, you don't have it."
I vehemently disagree with this statement.
It seems you were wrong.
All I'm saying is, of you plan to argue about rights, quoting the relevant document will help you look like you know what you're talkign about (and conversely, quoting the Declaration of Independence as if it is anything more than a nice composition will make you look like you don't know what you're talking about).
"My time and effort is better spent attempting to organize peaceful revolt against our government than any of this shit."
I suspect people would listen more if you used a relevant argument from a relevant document instead of quoting what is essentially a propaganda piece.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The Declaration of Independence is nice, but that's not a legally biding statement. Maybe your argument would be better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution instead.
Here.
"In short, it has nothing of what I find important in graphic art."
And the Dark Knight series did?
Seriously, your criticism is just as easily leveled at that series, and honestly, the are was the weakest component. I remember thinking while reading it "who the hell paid this guy money for this" which is pretty standard for my critiques of Frank Miller. It's muddled, dreary, and distracts from the story.
And again, seriously, if you're going to criticize Sandman, you're going to have to get used to having your opinion dismissed, especially if you hold up Miller as a counterpoint. I suggest for your next trick, you tell us how crappy Watchmen was...
"Yes, there are great examples of American comic artists - Frank Miller comes to mind."
With every ounce of respect I can muster, that statement alone means your opinion is suspect.
"As an example, after hearing so much about the Sandman chronicles, I browsed through one. I found the art disappointing, and the story mildly interesting."
However, if that first statement weren't enough, that second one sealed it.
I've read comics from everywhere, thanks to one of my favorite (recently defanged) torrent trackers. I have to be honest, your opinion has to be based on a very small sample, as the vast majority of what I saw was crap.
"Right now, the majority of videogames are violent"
Is there some reputable source you got this from, or is this another example of Slashdotian Ass-talkery?
"You are wrong. France, Russia, Israel, and Taiwan have the largest industrial espionage programs against the United States."
Any sentence that begins "you are wrong" and isn't followed by credible sources (or in your case, ANY sources) is suspect.
So, sources please?
"I wasnt saying that theyre not hostile just that what china do is nothing compaired to what the CIA do."
Which is irrelevant. The topic is China and their behavior, nothing more. No comparison of China to anyone else in any way makes their wrongs less wrong, so there is no logical reason to discuss anyone else.
In case you weren't aware, this is the fallacy you allowed yourself to fall victim to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque